North Essex Parking Partnership

Transcription

1 North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Working Committee On-Street Parking Grand Jury Room, Colchester Town Hall, High Street, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1PJ 21 June 2018 at pm The vision and aim of the Joint Committee is to provide a merged parking service that provides a single, flexible enterprise of full parking services for the Partner Authorities.

2

3 North Essex Parking Partnership Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee The role of the Joint Committee is to ensure the effective delivery of Parking Services for Colchester Borough Council, Braintree, Epping Forest, Harlow, Tendring and Uttlesford District Councils, in accordance with the Agreement signed by the authorities in April 2011, covering the period Members are reminded to abide by the terms of the legal agreement: The North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee Agreement 2011 A combined parking service for North Essex and in particular paragraphs Sub committees may be established. A sub-committee will operate under the same terms of reference. The Joint Committee will be responsible for all the functions entailed in providing a joint parking service including those for: o Back-Office Operations o Parking Enforcement o Strategy and Policy Development o Signage and Lines, Traffic Regulation Orders (function to be transferred, over time, as agreed with Essex County Council) o On-street charging policy insofar as this falls within the remit of local authorities (excepting those certain fees and charges being set out in Regulations) o Considering objections made in response to advertised Traffic Regulation Orders (as part of a sub-committee of participating councils) o Car-Park Management (as part of a sub-committee of participating councils) The following are excluded from the Joint Service (these functions will be retained by the individual Partner Authorities): o Disposal/transfer of items on car-park sites o Decisions to levy fees and charges at off-street parking sites o Changes to opening times of off-street parking buildings o Ownership and stewardship of car-park assets o Responding to customers who contact the authorities directly The Joint Committee has the following specific responsibilities: o the responsibility for on street civil parking enforcement and charging, relevant signs and lines maintenance and the power to make relevant traffic regulation orders in accordance with the provisions contained within the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

4 Strategic Planning Agreeing a Business Plan and a medium-term Work (or Development) Plan, to form the framework for delivery and development of the service. Reviewing proposals and options for strategic issues such as levels of service provision, parking restrictions and general operational policy. Committee Operating Arrangements Operating and engaging in a manner, style and accordance with the Constitution of the Committee, as laid out in the Agreement, in relation to Membership, Committee Support, Meetings, Decision-Making, Monitoring & Assessment, Scrutiny, Conduct & Expenses, Risk and Liability. Service Delivery Debating and deciding Providing guidance and support to Officers as required to facilitate effective service delivery. Monitoring Reviewing regular reports on performance, as measured by a range of agreed indicators, and progress in fulfilling the approved plans. Publishing an Annual Report of the Service Decision-making Carrying out the specific responsibilities listed in the Agreement, for : Managing the provision of Baseline Services Agreeing Business Plans Agreeing new or revised strategies and processes Agreeing levels of service provision Recommending levels of fees and charges Recommending budget proposals Deciding on the use of end-year surpluses or deficits Determining membership of the British Parking Association or other bodies Approving the Annual Report Fulfilling obligations under the Traffic Management Act and other legislation Delegating functions. (Note: the Committee will not have responsibility for purely operational decisions such as Staffing.) Accountability & Governance Reporting to the Partner Authorities, by each Committee Member, according to their respective authorities separate arrangements. Complying with the arrangements for Scrutiny of decisions, as laid out in the Agreement Responding to the outcome of internal and external Audits

5 North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee Meeting On-Street Thursday 21 June 2018 at 1.00 pm Grand Jury Room, Colchester Town Hall, Colchester Borough Council, High Street, Colchester, CO1 1PJ Agenda Attendees Executive Members:- Cllr Richard Van Dulken (Braintree) Cllr Sam Kane (Epping) Cllr Mike Lilley (Colchester) Cllr Robert Mitchell (Essex) Cllr Fred Nicholls (Tendring) Cllr Danny Purton (Harlow) Cllr Howard Ryles (Uttlesford) Officers:- Jonathan Baker (Colchester) Lou Belgrove (Parking Partnership) Richard Block (Colchester) Liz Burr (Essex County Council) Trevor Degville (Parking Partnership) Qasim Durrani (Epping Forest) Laura Hardisty (Colchester) Simon Jackson (Uttlesford) Hayley McGrath (Colchester) Samir Pandya (Braintree) Miroslav Sihelsky (Harlow) Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) Ian Taylor (Tendring) Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) Introduced by Page 1. Appointment of Chairman To appoint a Chairman for the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee for On-Street parking 2. Appointment of Deputy Chairman To appoint a Chairman for the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee for On-Street parking 3. Welcome & Introductions 4. Apologies and Substitutions 5. Declarations of Interest The Chairman to invite Councillors to declare individually any interests they may have in the items on the agenda. 6. Have Your Say The Chairman to invite members of the public or attending councillors if they wish to speak either on an item on the agenda or a general matter. 7. Minutes To approve as a correct record the draft minutes of the On- Street and Off-Street meetings held on 22 March

6 8. Technical Team This report asks the committee to consider traffic order scheme prioritisation for scheme at Audley Court, Saffron Walden and request for review of a previously installed scheme at Catons Lane, Saffron Walden. Trevor Degville Proposal for funding to implement 3PR schools project This report set outs details of the 3PR scheme and a programme for implementation. The scheme helps to reduce congestion during the school run by having an unofficial parking zone patrolled by pupils and staff. Emma Day Annual Governance Review and Internal Audit The report considers the Governance Review and Internal Audit of the North Essex Parking Partnership for the year 2017/ Annual Review of Risk Management This report concerns the 2018/19 Risk Management Strategy and current strategic risk register for the partnership Hayley McGrath Hayley McGrath Financial Report (On and Off Street) This report sets out the financial position of the Parking Partnership at the end of 2017/18 Lou Belgrove NEPP Annual Report Data for 2017/18 This report sets out the data required to be published as part of transparency requirements. A full report will be made to the October meeting. Richard Walker On-Street Operational Report The report gives Members an overview of operational progress since December Lou Belgrove Forward Plan This report conerns the Forward Plan of meetings for the North Essex Parking Partnership. 16. Urgent Items To announce any items not on the agenda which the Chairman has agreed to consider. Jonathan Baker 67-70

7 NORTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP JOINT COMMITTEE FOR ON-STREET PARKING 22 March 2018 at 1.00pm Council Chamber, Epping Forest District Council Members Present: Councillor Sam Kane (Epping Forest District Council) Councillor Mike Lilley (Colchester Borough Council) Councillor Robert Mitchell (Essex County Council) Councillor Danny Purton (Harlow District Council) Councillor Howard Ryles (Uttlesford District Council) Apologies - Also Present: - Councillor Richard Van Dulken (Colchester Borough Council) Councillor Fred Nicholls (Tendring District Council) Michael Adamson (Parking Partnership) Jonathan Baker (Colchester Borough Council Christine Belgrove (Parking Partnership) Richard Block (Colchester Borough Council) Frances Britton (Parking Partnership) Liz Burr (Essex County Council) Emma Day (Parking Partnership) Trevor Degville (Parking Partnership) Qasim Durrani (Epping Forest District Council) Simon Jackson (Uttlesford District Council) Samir Pandya (Braintree District Council) Ian Taylor (Tendring District Council) Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) Nick Binder (South Essex Parking Partnership) Claire Harris (South Essex Parking Partnership) 31. Declarations of Interest Councillor Robert Mitchell declared a non-pecuniary interest, in respect of being a member of Braintree District Council. 32. Minutes Richard Walker provided the Committee with a brief update on the footway and obstructive parking issue. The Committee were informed that this could be included within the CCAS accreditation and be included as one of the nine powers that Civil Enforcement Officers can use. Richard Walker also confirmed that it would be preferable if this particular issue were decriminalised. Richard Walker stated that it was intended that a further report including the guidelines and communication plan would come back to the Joint Committee in due course. RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 14 December 2017 were confirmed as a correct record. 33. South Essex Parking Partnership 3PR Presentation Nick Binder, Group Manager, South Essex Parking Partnership, and Claire Harris, SEPP 1

8 Engagement Officer, provided the Panel with an update on the schools parking initiative 3PR. Nick Binder stated that the SEPP had previously attended the Joint Committee meeting to introduce the parking initiative and provide an overview of the pilot school launch. Nick Binder highlighted that this has now progressed and the SEPP have employed Claire Harris in a full time role as engagement officer to develop 3PR. Clare Harris provided the Committee with a presentation regarding the progress of 3PR. The presentation provided details of the 3PR website, refreshed content including quizzes and certificates as well as school case studies. Claire Harris explained that 3PR creates an advisory no parking zone outside of schools. The zone areas are created by each school and attempt to encourage more considerate parking by placing 3PR patrols at each entrance to the zone. The patrols are pupils at the school who wear hi-vis jackets and hand out tokens to other pupils who walk into the zone. Tokens are then collected by classes with the class that collects the most tokens receiving a trophy, and if they win for the whole year they could receive a goody bag or house points. Claire Harris confirmed that the 3PR parking zones does not remove the existing parking restrictions that are already in place. Prior to a scheme being introduced, residents are informed by a letter from the school or the local Council. Claire Harris highlighted other schemes that could be introduced within a 3PR area, including Park and Stride where a local parking facility is used away from the school. An example of this was provided with an Asda store permits parents to park in their car park before walking to school. A further example was provided with regards to parents at a school in the Basildon area who have been signed up to MiPermit to have an hour of free parking in the morning and afternoon so they can park in a car park near the school and walk into the school. This has helped to remove 100 cars from the school gates. Claire Harris highlighted other options that are available, such as walking buses, however these rely on more volunteers. It is also possible to develop links for the scheme with national walking initiatives. As a result of parents parking on pavements outside schools, signs have been purchased to deter this and are currently on a rota basis across schools, however individual schools are able to purchase signs if required. The Committee thanked Officers for attending and providing the update on the 3PR initiative. In response to a query about the number of schools that were involved in the pilot, it was confirmed that seven schools are up and running, with a further ten looking to implement the initiative. It was also confirmed that it can take some time to implement the park and stride parking locations. With regard to signing parents up to MiPermit, this was set up so that it expired at the end of a school year and parents are also provided with an orange sticker to identify those cars participating in the scheme. In response to a question about whether existing Traffic Regulation Order powers were required to assist when it was introduced, Claire Harris confirmed that the existing restrictions remain and Civil Enforcement Officers are aware of the schools that are part of 3PR. It was suggested that placing pupils at the edge of each zone in hi-vis jackets acts as a good deterrent. As the initiative moves forward, 3PR is operating extremely well. The project is reviewed at 2

9 each school after a number of months with schools taking ownership of the scheme. Assistance is still provided by the SEPP if required. Claire Harris highlighted the need for 3PR to continue to be engaging, refreshing the content and using new quizzes and creating events. With regard to the cost of the scheme, it was confirmed that the total package costs 500 per school. This includes the tokens, boxes, trophies and literature. A cheaper option could be worked out if schools opted not to take the standard token boxes. Nick Binder also highlighted that the SEPP had allocated 80,000 to assist in approaching 160 schools. Further ongoing revenue support may be needed following this. Nick Binder highlighted that this support would provide a better solution that inputting a Traffic Regulation Order at significant cost, which may not work. Nick Binder also welcomed having a dedicated officer in Claire Harris providing engagement with schools. Committee members welcomed the update provided and were keen to see a report brought back to the Joint Committee investigating the potential costs. Members also commented that it may be necessary to wait until further schools within the SEPP area have signed up to the scheme. RESOLVED; a) That the progress of the 3PR scheme be noted b) That a report containing resource implications of the 3PR initiative, if implemented in the NEPP area, be brought to the next Committee meeting. 34. Permit and Pay to Park Prices Lou Belgrove, Parking Partnership, introduced the Permit and Pay to Park Prices The report requests that the Committee approve the permit prices and pay to park prices across the next four years. The report also requests that the Committee delegate powers to Officers to vary on-street prices in pay to park areas at other times to maintain parity with Off-Street prices and to introduce the changes to the Parking Orders. Lou Belgrove explained that that previously agreed pricing structure had come to an end, and a new set of proposed charges was required. Lou Belgrove also highlighted that in order to remain flexible and to ensure that parity is kept between On-Street and Off-Street parking charges, delegated authority be given to officers to make changes to pricing as and when appropriate. Committee members highlighted concerns regarding the increase in permit costs. Queries were raised as to the reason behind the rises and whether they truly reflect the cost of patrolling. Richard Walker informed the Committee that, in addition to the cost of patrolling, there is a socio-demographic and geographic element to the pricing, representing scarcity of space in some locations. This ensures that the cost of providing enforcement in residential parking zones is fully covered. The increase in permit parking prices amounts to approximately 3% and the partnership has to set out in advance the increase in permit price over the next four years. Richard Walker also highlighted the fact that the disparity between permit prices in different local authority areas is due to the prices that were introduced before the NEPP. Following a further query regarding the number of parking permits in the NEPP area, Richard Walker confirmed that there are approximately 5,200 permits, which would yield 15k from the increase. Committee members agreed that it would be useful for further information on the number of permits and patrol costs to be presented at a future meeting. This would include the different permits purchased in each area. 3

10 In response to queries around the increase of the permit prices alongside the budget surplus, it was explained that the permit price covers the cost of maintaining the residents parking zones. The income from the pay and display services provides funding for other areas, and surpluses that are made are used to invest into the service in line with the development plan. In response to a question regarding traders permits, Richard Walker confirmed that these are for traders who work across the partnership. There is a recommendation to reduce the price which was set too high at the beginning of the process limiting the uptake. Further clarification was made highlighting the reason between digital and paper permits costs, with the paper copies costing more due to the cost of administration, creation and storage. It was proposed, following comments from some members of the Committee, that Permit Prices be considered again in two years time, rather than the four years as recommended in the report. This will enable the Committee to assess the finances in two years and look again at the cost of permit prices. It was also suggested that in future reports, where permit prices are the same across the partnership this be displayed on a separate table so that it is easier to spot the differences in permit pricing across the partnership area. With regard to the delegation of powers to officers, Richard Walker explained that this was required to ensure that the cost of parking, particularly in relation to the Epping area retained parity. The Committee were also informed that MiPermit will soon be releasing an updated app that would cover visitors permits and residents permits. RESOLVED that; a) Permit Prices be approved across the next two financial years to 2020, before a further report is brought to the Committee b) Pay to park prices be approved across the next two financial years to 2020, before a further report is brought back to the Committee. c) The Committee delegate powers to officers to vary the on-street prices in pay to park areas at any other time in order to maintain at least parity with off-street areas d) The Committee delegate powers to officers to introduce the changes to the Parking Orders. e) A report be brought to the Committee at the next opportunity providing information relating to the number of permits and cost of enforcement. 35. Delegations to Officers and Chairman Report 2018 Richard Walker, Parking Partnership, introduced the Delegations to Officers and Chairman Report. The report requests that the Committee note the delegations to officers and the Chair of the Committee. The report also recommended that wording within the Traffic Regulation Order policy be clarified to confirm that any Traffic Regulation Order could be made under the delegation. Richard Walker, explained that the report was brought to the Committee to ensure good governance, transparency and clarity. The report provides a reminder of the delegations that are set up as part of the agreement and seeks to clarify the wording used in the policy to ensure that all TRO s could be issued under delegated powers. RESOLVED that; a) The delegations to officers and the Chair of the Committee be noted. b) That the wording in 3.4 be clarified so that it is clear that any Traffic Regulation Order 4

11 can be made under this delegation. 36. NEPP Technical Team Traffic Regulation Order Updates Trevor Degville, Parking Partnership, presented the Technical Team Traffic Regulation Order update report. The report requests that the update be noted. Trevor Degville stated that the information contained within the report provided Committee members with an update of the schemes that had been introduced during 2017, temporary orders that had been put in place as well as the Loughton Review Phase 1. The report also contained information on those schemes that had been advertised, however this did not include schemes in the Harlow District Council areas as they are being advertised in the week following the meeting. Trevor Degville, also confirmed that if any significant objections are received, as is standard practice, they would be brought to the next possible meeting. Members of the Committee and Client Officers expressed thanks to the NEPP Officers for the work undertaken. It was highlighted that the work undertaken at Mount Pleasant in Saffron Walden had not been included in the report. Thanks were also expressed for the work carried out on this project. RESOLVED that the Technical Team Traffic Regulation Order update be noted. 37. On-Street Finance Report Christine Belgrove, Parking Partnership, introduced the On-Street Finance report. The report requests that the Committee note the financial position after period /18 and to approve the proposed budget for 2018/19. Christine Belgrove explained that whilst the income from Penalty Charge Notices and Pay and Display areas currently remains on track the outturn figure at the end of the year is likely to change due to the recent weather conditions. The outturn position for resident parking is slightly over budget due to the number of schemes brought in. In response to a query regarding the budget for Traffic Regulation Orders, Richard Walker explained that for next year s budget this has been moved from the traffic regulation order line into the supplies and services section. This will be moved back when in the financial year. RESOLVED that; a) That the financial position after period /18 be noted. b) That the proposed budget for 2018/19 be approved. 38. North Essex Parking Partnership Annual Report Richard Walker, Parking Partnership, introduced the North Essex Parking Partnership Annual Report. The report requests that the accompanying text of the Annual Report 2016/17 be noted and that the Annual report be published in the revised style which will set up for the format for future publications. Richard Walker explained that in line with the statutory guidance the Joint Committee had previously received the data that would be included in an annual report. This report 5

12 provides information relating to the text that would be used in a more visually appealing and customer friendly report. Richard Walker highlighted the Brighton and Hove Council Annual Parking Report as an example to follow. Richard Walker also informed the Committee that he has been pushing for a more consistent approach for annual reports nationally. RESOLVED that; a) The accompanying text for the Annual Report 2016/17 be noted b) The report be published in a revised style that will set up the format for future publications. 39. Forward Plan 2018/19 Jonathan Baker, Colchester Borough Council, introduced the Forward Plan 2017/18. The report requests that the North Essex Parking Partnership Forward Plan for 2017/18 be noted. Jonathan Baker highlighted that the Committee had suggested that three items be included in the work programme for the next municipal year during this meeting. This included an update on the number of permits issued within the NEPP area and cost of enforcement, as well as a report on the cost implications of the 3PR initiative. The Committee also requested that further information on the footway and obstructive enforcement powers be provided at a future meeting. All three items will be scheduled for the next municipal years' work programme. RESOLVED that; a) The Forward Plan 2017/18 be noted 40. Urgent Items NEPP TRO Review and Combined ECC ParkMap Implementation proposal Following agreement from the Committee Chairman, Richard Walker provided information regarding the NEPP Traffic Regulation Order review and combined Essex County Council ParkMap implementation proposal. This item was required as urgent due to the fact that the South Essex Parking Partnership had already agreed to this scheme and if the NEPP were proceed it would ensure a single mapping approach across the whole of Essex and lead to efficiency savings. Richard Walker explained that at the June 2017 Joint Committee meeting, members agreed that 80,000 be spent on remapping the NEPP area which will assist with creating TRO s and providing information to the public. Following this, the plans have been further developed to move to a line based mapping scheme, which will enable both members of the public and contractors to see exactly where existing and proposals TRO s will be situated. Nick Binder, SEPP, informed the Committee that this project started following a desire to do a health check on the current lines in place in the South Essex area. This led to discussions with providers and the possibility of using a line based system which was easier to map and could be provided at a lower cost than the polygon system. The Committee were informed that moving to this system would cost approximately 108,000 and include some additional works. Committee members welcomed the possibility of improved mapping and technology. 6

13 Further confirmation was requested regarding who would own the system. Richard Walker stated that whilst Essex County Council would provide the technology platform, but that this would need to be funded by the NEPP and the SEPP in order to proceed. RESOLVED that: a) The Joint Committee note the update on the NEPP TRO Review and Combined ECC ParkMap implementation proposal. b) The Joint Committee delegate authority to the Chairman to approve the funding for the NEPP TRO Review, following circulation of a report to all Client Officers.. 7

14 NORTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP JOINT COMMITTEE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING 22 March 2018 at 1.00pm Council Chamber, Epping Forest District Council, Essex Executive Members Present:- Councillor Mike Lilley (Colchester Borough Council) Councillor Danny Purton (Harlow District Council) Councillor Howard Ryles (Uttlesford District Council) Also Present: - Michael Adamson (Parking Partnership) Jonathan Baker (Colchester Borough Council) Christine Belgrove (Parking Partnership) Richard Block (Colchester Borough Council) Frances Britton (Parking Partnership) Emma Day (Parking Partnership) Trevor Degville (Parking Partnership) Jake England (Parking Partnership) Laura Hardisty (Colchester Borough Council) Simon Jackson (Uttlesford District Council) Councillor Robert Mitchell (Essex County Council) Samir Pandya (Braintree District Council Shane Taylor (Parking Partnership) Richard Walker (Parking Partnership) 12. Minutes RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2018 were confirmed as a correct record. 13. Off-Street Financial Report Christine Belgrove, Parking Partnership, introduced the Off-Street Financial report. The report requests that the Joint Committee note the financial position as set out in the report. Christine Belgrove informed the Committee that the forecast outturn for the budget is for a small surplus of 4,000. Committee members were informed that the two errors in the variance column, highlighted in discussion with Client Officers, had been corrected. In addition, it was confirmed that the Off-Street overspend in supplies and services was a result of delayed invoices that are anticipated to be paid. Jonathan Baker, Colchester Borough Council, confirmed to Committee members that as this was the last meeting, closure of the Off-Street accounts would be incorporated into a future On-Street meeting. Minutes from this item, and the meeting as a whole would be incorporated into the next On-Street meeting agenda. A member of the Committee queried the length of notice that would need to be served if a partner authority wished to withdraw from the Service Level Agreements. Richard Walker confirmed that partner authorities could opt for one, three or four yearlong service level agreements. Longer service level agreements would contain 8

15 certain discounts as this allows for use of long term contractors, presenting additional savings. Richard Walker stated that the service level agreements are ready to be signed by each authority. RESOLVED that the Off-Street Financial report be noted. 9

16 Meeting Date: 21 June 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: Technical Report Trevor Degville, NEPP Technical Manager Trevor Degville This report asks the committee to consider traffic order scheme prioritisation for scheme at Audley Court, Saffron Walden and request for review of a previously installed scheme at Catons Lane, Saffron Walden. 1. Recommended Decision(s) 1.1. To consider and approve traffic regulation proposal Other options are to defer or reject the proposal To approve amendments being made to Catons Lane (Saffron Walden) resident permit scheme and surrounding areas following request for review To approve a change to the NEPP Traffic Regulation Orders General Policy to ensure that any future reviews that are agreed are counted as one of the relevant councils allotted prioritised proposals (generally a maximum of 6 per year) 2. Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1. Members are asked to consider the following for approval: a) prioritisation of scheme to enable deliveries to be made; b) reduction in the size of the Catons Lane permit scheme and introduction of waiting restrictions nearby following requests for review; c) To control the number of future reviews that NEPP undertakes and ensure that most requests are made via the standard TRO application process 3. TRO Scheme Proposal : Scheme Audley Court Saffron Walden 3.1. At the December 2017 JPC it was agreed that proposed traffic regulation orders would generally be considered at the October meetings. However, the committee indicated that there needed to be an element of flexibility to the process if there were urgent traffic regulation order applications that the partner authority considered appropriate to be approved at other times of the year A request for the application to be considered and approved by the committee at the June JPC has been received from a local councillor. The request is supported by Uttlesford District Council If this request is approved Uttlesford District Council would have a maximum of 5 recommendations for approval at the October meeting compared to the 6 available to other partner authorities. 10

17 Ref Number District Uttlesford 4. Road Audley Road (Saffron Walden) Type of restriction Parking Bay Reasons for restrictions To allow deliveries and visitors to Audley Court residential home Partner authority recommendation Approve Review of Catons Lane permit scheme (Uttlesford District) 4.1. The Catons Lane resident permit scheme was introduced by NEPP in A request for a review of the permit scheme has been received one of the local ward councillors on the district and town council. This is the first review that has been requested following changes to the NEPP traffic regulation order policies in The 2016 Traffic Regulation Orders General Policy allows for a review of traffic regulation orders (pages 3 5 of the policy). In particular relevance is the following, the local community can ask for a review if they believe that parking restrictions should be changed as a result of changed circumstances or if they believe that restrictions have had unintended consequences. In addition, as a matter of good practice there are occasions when traffic regulation orders that have been introduced may need to be reviewed to ensure that they have met the original aims of the scheme In this case the resident permit scheme has reserved on-street parking for residents and their visitors but the displacement of vehicles onto Little Walden Road and other nearby residential areas has caused problems for residents, other road users and traffic flow The review requests that the area given to residents is reduced. It is anticipated that this will still allow sufficient space for residents and their visitors but will also allow additional unrestricted areas for non-residents, such as parents/guardians to the nearby primary school. It has also been requested that waiting restrictions are extended/added to parts of Little Walden Road to help counteract the displacement of vehicles that has occurred Map showing current restrictions 11

18 Meeting Date: 21 st June 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: Proposal for funding to implement 3PR schools project Emma Day Parking Systems Team Leader Emma Day Parking Systems Team Leader This report sets out details of the 3PR scheme and a programme for implementation. The scheme helps to reduce congestion during the school run by having an unofficial parking zone patrolled by pupils and staff 1. Recommended Decision(s) 1.1. To agree 50k funding to be set aside to enable the implementation of the 3PR schools project across all districts and boroughs enforced by North Essex Parking Partnership (NEPP). 2. Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1. To implement an extension of the successful South Essex Parking Partnership (SEPP) 3PR project across NEPP. 3. Alternative Options 3.1 To take no action and allow inconsiderate and dangerous parking and congestion to continue, with possible risks to the safety of the school children. 4. Supporting Information 4.1. The scheme has been successful in reducing congestion around school entrances by engaging with the school children who are responsible for the patrolling and monitoring the 3PR Zone. 5. Background Information PR, the 3 parking rules, which was developed by SEPP is a project which focuses on safer parking around primary schools. The 3PR project has been administered to 10 schools across SEPP in its first year The aims of the scheme are to: Safer Parking: Improved Behaviour Improved Attitude Cohesive Approach Community Engagement Reduced Car Journeys Healthier Journeys 12

19 The goals of the scheme are: To improve safety and traffic flows at peak times To change behaviour and attitudes to parking at schools To provide schools with the means to manage school parking The outcomes will include: Cohesive approach to tackling school parking problem Schools promoting and participating in the project Alternative journeys to school promoted and actively used 5.3. There are two 3PR packages available, the choice of which is dependent on the needs of the school and viability of the location; the project manager will advise the best fit. Package A1 3PR Zone This is an unofficial parking zone, patrolled by the children. Any child who walks, scoots or cycles into the 3PR zone will receive a token. The tokens will be counted and at the end of each week and/or month the class with the most tokens will receive the 3PR Class Winner Trophy and class certificate. Schools who sign up for 3PR will be provided with lamp post zone signage, railing banners, information booklets, 3PR branded Hi-vis tabards and hats for the children, tokens and tokens boxes for each class. The school will also be provided with a 3PR class winner s trophy and class certificate. The school will decide if the class winner will be decided weekly or monthly. Each school should also be recording the weekly/monthly class winners and at the end of the academic year the class who have received the 3PR Class Winners Trophy the most will be named 3PR Champions. The winning class will receive a reward. Reward to be agreed. Package A2 3PR Zone with a Park and Stride In addition to Package A1, features include an alternative place for parents to park. Park and Stride is a great way of encouraging parents to park further away. This helps in reducing the number of cars passing the school and increases the walk to school (maximum of 10 minutes), promoting health. Where possible the 3PR Project Officer will look to find a suitable location for a Park and Stride Scheme and work with the school to make an agreement with the local business owner/village hall keeper etc. Parents will be provided with car stickers. Package B Where a 3PR zone is not suitable For schools where a 3PR Zone wouldn t be suitable as it would remove too many parking spaces, we would create a parking map with pictures of problem areas and giving advice but there wouldn t be a zone and it would not include the token element of the project. It is important to try to offer the full 3PR package as it has the buy in from the children which ultimately can often persuade parents to change behaviours, however it is not always feasible Having a choice of two packages will help to keep 3PR in its true form and will stop the brand from being diluted. This also keeps a consistent message County-wide. 13

20 5.5. In order to deal with the potential demand for the implementation of 3PR across NEPP, certain criteria will have to be meet in order for a school to be considered: 3PR Project Manager will carry out an initial review of the school, at school run time; Number of complaints pertaining to parking outside the school received by North Essex Parking Partnership; and Number of PCNs issued on schools restrictions within the last 12 months 5.6. The initial review of the school may show the school is not suitable for 3PR so they will be offered the 2nd package and any additional advice and enforcement, where possible We are looking at implementing 3PR at a minimum of 10 schools in the first year (2 per district or borough). We have been approached by 4 schools already 2 with funding Our parking patrols will be compiling a list from information they have of the Primary Schools experiencing the most issues. 6. Publicity Considerations PR has its own website ( which carries most of the publicity material. SEPP has paid for the initial set up costs of the project, although NEPP logos and information will be added to the website and stationery, at nominal cost NEPP will also carry a page on its website outlining the scheme and providing links to the 3PR site The Project Manager will work with the school to deliver other communications necessary. 7. Financial implications 7.1. Funding is required to be able to offer 3PR across the boroughs and districts managed by NEPP The Project Manager role will be absorbed by existing resources The full 3PR package costs 500. This figure has been calculated on an average primary school (see Appendix 1). If schools are unable to fund the project themselves, they may apply for limited grant funding from NEPP. 8. Other implications 8.1. The Committee has already approved in principle the decision to proceed, and this report sets out the financial and publicity considerations Beyond the details above, there are no particular Equality, Diversity and Human Right implications, no particular Health and Safety considerations and no particular Health and Safety considerations. Background Papers None 14

21 Appendix 1 Breakdown of item costs Resources Estimated Cost Per item 3PR Railing Banner 55 A4 Lamp post signs PR 12-page information booklet 50p 3PR Parking Map and 65 Design Fee information leaflet 3PR Park and Stride Map and 65 Design Fee information Leaflet 3PR Park and Stride Car Window Design Fee Sticker 70 stickers PR Tokens (500 per bag) 54 3PR Token Boxes PR Backing Cards for Token 2.00 Boxes 3PR Class Winners Trophy PR Class Winners Certificate Free PDF 3PR Patrol High Viz tabard 7.70 (Child) 3PR Patrol Cap (Child) PR road signs (3PR figure) 200 3PR Patrol High Viz tabard 8.80 (Adult) 3PR Patrol Cap (Adult) PR Badges 50p 15

22 Meeting Date: June 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: Annual Governance Review and Internal Audit Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, Colchester BC Hayley McGrath The report considers the Governance Review and Internal Audit of the North Essex Parking Partnership for the year 2017/ Recommended Decision(s) 1.1. The Joint Committee is requested to note the annual governance review of the North Essex Parking Partnership, and 1.2. Review and comment on the attached Internal Audit report for the North Essex Parking Partnership (NEPP). 2. Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1. The service is provided by the lead authority on behalf of the partners and it is therefore appropriate that the joint committee is provided with assurance that the service is being appropriately managed. 3. Background Information 3.1. Previously the Accounts and Audit regulations required the Joint Committee to annually review the service s internal control arrangements and complete a governance statement and a small bodies return. However the minimum turn-over limits have been raised and the service no longer has a duty to complete these items Whilst the small bodies return is no longer required, it is felt appropriate that the joint committee is still provided with an assurance about the effectiveness of the internal control arrangements and the internal audit review forms a significant part of the review All audit reports are given one of four assurance ratings no assurance, limited assurance, substantial assurance or full assurance. This is based on the number and severity of the recommendations. A guide to assurance levels and recommendations is set out at Appendix /18 Governance Review 4.1. The small bodies return required the Committee to confirm that the service had complied with several areas of governance. Therefore the review has assessed the following areas: An adequate system of internal control was maintained including measures designed to prevent and detect fraud and corruption. Risks were appropriately assessed and controlled. Accounting records and control systems were subject to an effective system of internal audit. Appropriate action was taken in respect of any external and internal audit recommendations. 16

23 4.2. Many of the systems that the service uses are managed by Colchester Borough Council and are subject to their internal control procedure and review processes. Colchester Borough Council has a duty to produce an Annual Governance Statement and this indicates that an effective system of control has been in operation during 2017/ Overall there are adequate systems of control in place in the North Essex Parking Partnership and the areas of concern have been highlighted in the Internal Audit report, which is outlined below /18 Audit Review 5.1. The audit was carried out in April 2018 and the final report was issued in May The results of the audit are contained in the report attached at Appendix There were 5 recommendations relating to NEPP none at level 1, five at level 2 and none at level 3, which resulted in a Substantial Assurance rating. Management Information the Annual Report statutory requirements were met, but the full NEPP Annual Report was not published until March 2018; the finished document will be published prior to the AGM. Collection Procedures whilst the contract assigns mitigation of risk, the council needs to obtain copies of the contractor s risk assessment. Timeliness of Reconciliation some reconciliations were delayed due to paperwork being delayed by contractor. No reconciliations were missed. Debt Management system interface with all collection agencies will be required in new SLA upon re-tendering this year All recommendations have been accepted. A substantial assurance has been given. 6. Conclusion and Recommendations 6.1. There have been no significant governance issues raised during the year and the audit process did not highlight any areas of concern that effect the overall control arrangements of the partnership The review has demonstrated that the governance arrangements for the partnership continue to be effective. However, there are some internal controls that could be strengthened, and these are set out as recommendations in the attached internal audit report Members are asked to review and comment on the governance processes and internal audit report. 7. Standard References 7.1. Having considered consultation, equality, diversity and human rights, community safety, health and safety and risk management implications, there are none that are significant to the matters in this report. 17

24 Appendix 1 Key to Assurance Levels Assurance Gradings Internal Audit classifies internal audit assurance over four categories, defined as follows: Assurance Level Full Substantial Limited No Evaluation and Testing Conclusion There is a sound system of internal control designed to achieve the client s objectives. The control processes tested are being consistently applied. While there is a basically sound system of internal control, there are weaknesses, which put some of the client s objectives at risk. There is evidence that the level of non-compliance with some of the control processes may put some of the client s objectives at risk. Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the client s objectives at risk. The level of non-compliance puts the client s objectives at risk. Control processes are generally weak leaving the processes/systems open to significant error or abuse. Significant non-compliance with basic control processes leaves the processes/systems open to error or abuse. Recommendation Gradings Internal Audit categories recommendations according to their level of priority as follows: Priority Level Staff Consulted 1 Major issue for the attention of senior management and the Governance Committee. 2 Important issues to be addressed by management in their areas of responsibility 3 Minor issues resolved on site with local management. 18

25 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Internal Audit Report Parking Partnership Including Income (Ref: 331) June

26 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Contents 1. Executive Summary Observations and Recommendations... 6 Appendix 1 Audit Framework Appendix 2 Definition of Audit Assurance Appendix 3 Previous Assurance Opinions Appendix 4 Staff Consulted Appendix 5 Audit Timetable and KPIs Appendix 6 Statement of Responsibility Parking Partnership Including Income 2017/18 (Ref: 331) 20

27 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction This internal audit details the results of the internal audit of the controls in place over Parking Partnership including Income and has been undertaken in accordance with the approved Internal Audit Plan for 2017/18. Our audit approach and a summary of the work undertaken are provided in the Audit Framework in Appendix Background The North Essex Parking Partnership (NEPP) was established in April The Council is the Lead Partner whilst the partner authorities are Harlow District Council, Braintree District Council, Epping Forest District Council, Uttlesford District Council, Tendring District Council and Essex County Council. A Joint Committee has been formed for the purpose of overseeing the partnership, which consists of both on-street and off-street parking. Tendring District Council, Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council are not part of the off-street arrangements and a limited off-street parking service is provided for Harlow District Council. The cash collection service has been outsourced to G4S since October Audit Opinion Audit Opinion & Direction of Travel No Assurance Limited Assurance Substantial Assurance Full Assurance We categorise our opinions according to the assessment of the controls in place and the level of compliance with those controls. Rationale Supporting Award of Opinion and Direction of Travel The audit work carried out by Internal Audit (the scope of which is detailed in Appendix 1) indicated that: While there is a basically sound system of internal control, there are weaknesses, which put some of the Council s objectives at risk. There is evidence that the level of non-compliance with some of the control processes may put some of the Council s objectives at risk. This opinion results from the fact that we have raised five Priority 2 recommendations; full details are included in the body of the report. The previous audit of this area was completed in January 2017, when a Substantial opinion was awarded. As a result, there has been no change in the direction of travel. Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 1 21

28 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report 1.4. Summary of Findings Partnership Agreement A signed agreement is in place between the Council, as lead authority, and the partner authorities. The NEPP Joint Committee Agreement (the Agreement) comprises key sections concerning finance arrangements, monitoring of the NEPP and outlines the responsibilities of the Council as lead authority for providing support and assistance. An extension of the Agreement for a further four years has been approved and will be in place from 1 April Policies and Procedures The NEPP currently has a five-year Strategy and Development Plan in place that was implemented during the 2013/14 financial year and was updated in March The Strategy and Development Plan comprises sections including a mission statement and details the overall vision, aims and objectives of the Partnership. A Parking Partnership Development Plan has been approved and will be in place from April 2018, alongside the extension of the current agreement, which included a mission and vision section as well as aims and objectives. A supplementary document for this has also been approved and includes the organisational structure up to Documented procedures covering the current operational processes are in place for the NEPP and can be found on the NEPP s website. The Chipside system is used to administer daily processes within the NEPP, such as the issuing of Parking Charge Notifications (PCNs) and permits, which allows information concerning issued PCNs and parking permits to be easily located, including payments received and processes actioned. Staff are advised of any important changes to the NEPP s operational practices through the use of the Yammer network and newsletters that are ed to staff. There is also a staff information pack which can be found within the shared drive, which comprises a complete list of the parking tariffs for the car parks across the different regional areas covered by the NEPP. Accounting for Income The Joint Committee approved the NEPP s budget for the 2017/18 financial year at its meeting in March Testing confirmed that the quarterly contribution fees for those involved within the off-street parking agreement are being raised promptly and in accordance with the agreement and these payments have been accounted for within the accounts of the partner authorities. Our testing of a random sample of income relating to 10 parking permits and PCNs collected by the Council confirmed that the income had been paid over to the partner authorities and was for the correct amount. Transactions had been approved in accordance with the Council s Authorised Signatory List and posted under the correct partner account code. Daily reconciliations are now undertaken by Chipside for PCNs; since the NEPP started using Sage Pay for the collection process. Chipside send the reconciliation spreadsheets monthly to the NEPP. The monitoring spreadsheet completed by the Council, includes the date, variances between the system totals and the method of payment used. Income received in the bank is transferred to a holding account which is then reconciled to Chipside files (individual transactions) and reports (daily transactions). Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 2 22

29 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Season Tickets Parking tariffs have been made available to staff and the public via the NEPP website. For on-line purchases of season tickets, the price automatically appears upon selection of the car park and duration period. Reconciliation of season tickets are performed on a daily basis. Testing of a random sample of 20 reconciliations confirmed that they had been performed promptly, the supporting documentation had been signed and dated by the preparer, and they had been independently reviewed. Partnership Costs As mentioned above, the Joint Committee approved the NEPP s budget for the 2017/18 financial year in March Testing confirmed that parking expenditure for the NEPP had been administered and authorised by the Council in accordance with the Agreement and in all cases selected, documentation was available to support the transaction. Joint Committee There is an established Joint Committee with specific responsibilities to oversee the governance arrangements of the Partnership in line with the Agreement. It was confirmed that the Joint Committee meet on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Agreement. Supporting documentation for the meetings are held on the NEPP s website. These meetings are used to discuss any NEPP or operational issues. The agenda and supporting documentation for the Joint Committee meeting is published on the NEPP s website in advance of the scheduled meetings and this was confirmed for the meeting scheduled for December Provisional meeting dates for both Client Officer and Joint Committee meetings are published at the end of the financial year for the following year. Client Officer Meetings are held in the month prior to the Joint Committee meetings. The NEPP Annual Accounts for the 2016/17 financial year, along with the Annual Governance Statement, were approved by the Joint Committee at their meeting in June 2017 and then published. Whilst the statutory requirements to report statistics were complied with (reported at the June 2017 AGM), the Annual Report for 2016/17 has not yet been prepared for approval by the Joint Committee. A recommendation has been raised (Recommendation 1). Management Information Budget reports have been produced detailing the financial position of the NEPP at the end of the 2016/17 financial year and forecast for 2017/18. The financial position as at the end of period 6 (September 2017) was reviewed by the Joint Committee at the meetings held in October Procedures for the Collection of Car Park Fees The responsibility for the collection of parking fees are undertaken by G4S. The contract between G4S and the NEPP has been extended for a further two years through to December 2018, with a three month termination notice period option from either party. G4S are responsible for the collection of cash from the partners and a risk assessment covering the processes should be undertaken by the Council or by G4S and shared, we were unable to verify whether this had been done. A recommendation has been raised (Recommendation 2). Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 3 23

30 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Security and Accuracy of Car Park Income Collection Income collected and banked by G4S is matched to the income received as reported by the car parking machines on a daily basis, with details of any variances undergoing investigation. An initial reconciliation is undertaken by the Parking Business Specialist followed by a second reconciliation, once additional machine readings have been received. Following completion, an independent review is undertaken by the Business Manager. Testing of a random sample of 20 reconciliations confirmed that 12 of the initial reconciliations were undertaken within a two week period of the cash collection; the remaining eight were completed between three and four weeks after the cash collection. The majority of second reconciliations were completed within a few days of the initial reconciliation. In all cases tested, supporting documentation was available for review and had been signed and dated by the preparer. Testing identified that there were delays in completing the independent review, and in two cases the reconciliation had not been signed and dated to evidence whether an independent review had been undertaken. A recommendation has been raised (Recommendation 3). There are no written procedures for the car parking income function covering the day to day processes. We did confirm as part of our testing that cash variances of over 50 are referred to G4S for investigation, however they are not currently reported to the Corporate Governance Manager for further investigation if required. A spreadsheet is maintained by the Parking Business Specialist, which outlines the progress of claims made to G4S throughout the year. However, the two claims made this year were rejected by G4S due to being received after the three months cut-off deadline. A recommendation has been raised (Recommendation 4). Production and Review of Management Information including Variance Reporting Budget statements detailing any variances are received by the Parking Partnership Group Manager from the Finance Business Partner on a monthly basis for review. Access to Car Park Pay Point Keys Registers are maintained which covers the issued keys for car parking machines across the NEPP and the keys for the Council s car parks. The register was last reviewed in October 2017 and the register was due to be amended again following a colleague leaving. Debt Management including Bailiffs and Write Offs Documented procedures are in place for debt recovery outlined by the Joint Committee of England and Wales for the Civil Enforcement of Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London (PATROL). Testing of a random sample of 20 PCNs issued this financial year, confirmed that in each case, appropriate action had been taken including the issuing of a Notice to Owner, responding to informal and formal challenges and where appropriate a Charge Certificate resulting in a penalty increase of 50%. Orders for Recovery and the assignment of bailiffs were also processed where debts remained outstanding. The NEPP has a Debt Cancellation Policy, which outlines the appropriate stages to be followed prior to a write-off and the authorisation that must be sought. However, the final step of authorisation outlined (sign-off by the Section 151 Officer) is not followed as a PCN is a Civil Penalty rather than a debt so there is no outstanding debt within the Council s system. A recommendation has been raised (Recommendation 5). Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 4 24

31 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report The Council's parking debt recovery arrangements are in place via membership of the Rotherham Framework Agreement. There are signed agreements with the three bailiffs; Jacobs, Newlyn and Rossendales, which are in place until 31 August The Parking Systems Team Leader maintains a spreadsheet of income received from the bailiff, which is signed-off and sent to the Income Team to assign the income against the PCN. Once a PCN has been written-off, it is inactivated on the Chipside system. However, it was found that no PCNs have been inactivated this year due to a fault in the system between Marston (a sister company of Rossendales) and Chipside. The Council are chasing Marston s to fix this and will inactivate the relevant cases once they have done so (see Recommendation 5) Acknowledgement We would like to thank staff at Colchester Borough Council for their assistance during the audit. Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 5 25

32 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report 2. Observations and Recommendations The recommendations from the report are presented below to assist you with the implementation of change. Adequacy and Effectiveness Assessments (definitions are found in Appendix 2) Area of Scope Adequacy of Controls Effectiveness of Controls Recommendations Raised Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Partnership Agreement Acceptable Effective Policies and Procedures Acceptable Effective Accounting for Income Acceptable Effective Season Tickets Acceptable Effective Partnership Costs Acceptable Effective Joint Committee Acceptable Effective Management Information Acceptable Partly Effective Procedures for the Collection of Car Park Fees Security and Accuracy of Car Park Income Collection Production and Review of Management Information including Variance Reporting Acceptable Partly Effective Acceptable Partly Effective Acceptable Effective Access to Car Park Pay Point Keys Acceptable Effective Debt Management including Bailiffs and Write Offs Acceptable Partly Effective Total Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 6 26

33 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Management Information 2.1 Annual Report Priority 2 Recommendation Rationale Responsibility The NEPP Annual Report should be received by the Joint Committee within six months of the financial year end. Management Response Producing the Annual Report will provide the Joint Committee and other recipients with additional assurance on the performance of the NEPP. Whilst the statutory requirements to report statistics were complied with (reported at the June 2017 AGM), the NEPP Annual Report for the 2016/17 financial year has not yet been published. Where the Annual Report is not published, there is an increased risk that the NEPP is not seen as open and transparent and its performance is open to challenge. Group Manager Deadline The requirement to publish statistics was met by June The Group Manager was seconded away from the service between September and December 2017, meaning that this piece of work was delayed. The full text of the report was published at the March 2018 meeting, and the full document will be published in new format prior to the June 2018 AGM. 31 July 2018 Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 7 27

34 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Procedures for the Collection of Car Park Fees 2.2 Risk Assessment Priority 2 Recommendation Rationale Responsibility To help ensure that safety of staff and visitors, the Council should undertake a risk assessment of the cash handling at the car parks, or receive assurances from G4S that they have done so. If reliance is placed on G4S, a copy of the risk assessment should be obtained. Management Response Undertaking a risk assessment or obtaining assurance from G4S that they have completed one, will provide management with additional assurance that the safety of staff and visitors in a cash handling environment have been considered. The Council has not undertaken a risk assessment or received assurance from G4S that arrangements for collection of cash and the safety of staff and visitors have been considered. Where a risk assessment is not undertaken, there is an increased risk that staff and visitors are put at risk as a result of manageable risks not being addressed / mitigated against. Technical Manager Deadline The contract states how risk should be mitigated by the contractor; the contractor's Risk Assessments to be acquired. 31 August 2018 Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 8 28

35 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Security and Accuracy of Car Park Income Collection 2.3 Timeliness of independent review of Daily Cash Collection Reconciliations Priority 2 Recommendation Rationale Responsibility Reconciliations should be completed and independently reviewed in a time manner, to help ensure that any differences are raised with G4S promptly. Consideration should be given to training Team Leaders to complete the independent review to provide additional coverage during busy periods. Management Response Reconciling and independently reviewing car park income will provide management with additional assurance that the figures are accurate and enable differences to be investigated in a timely manner. Testing of a random sample of 20 reconciliations confirmed that 12 of the initial reconciliations were undertaken within a two week period of the cash collection; the remaining eight were completed between three and four weeks after the cash collection. The majority of second reconciliations were completed within a few days of the initial reconciliation. In all cases tested, supporting documentation was available for review and had been signed and dated by the preparer. Testing identified that there were delays in completing the independent review, and in two cases the reconciliation had not been signed and dated to evidence whether an independent review had been undertaken. Where reconciliations are not completed and independently reviewed, there is an increased risk that discrepancies are not identified in a timely manner and remain unresolved, which could result in the NEPP not receiving all monies due. Business Manager Deadline Reconciliations to be completed or followed up with the contractor in a timelier manner, where the contractor does not provide documentation returns. Unresolved discrepancies to be notified to the Corporate Governance Manager. 31 August 2018 Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 9 29

36 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report 2.4 Written Procedures for the Collection of Cash Priority 2 Recommendation Rationale Responsibility Procedure should be developed covering the Cash Collection processes which the Council / NEPP are responsible for, including reconciliations, cash differences etc. Management Response Having written procedures in place will provide management with additional assurance that staff are aware of processes to be undertaken and how to perform them in the event of staff absence. We have been advised that there are no formal documented procedures in place. As part of our testing, we identified two differences of over 50. These were not raised with G4S within the agreed three month receipt of cash to query period and as a result, they were rejected. In addition, all differences of greater than 50 should be reported to the Corporate Governance Manager. Unless formal procedures are in place, there is an increased risk that staff fail to operate effectively and efficiently or in accordance with management requirements. Business Manager Deadline Procedure notes to be provided and discrepancies to be notified to the Corporate Governance Manager in a timely manner. 31 August 2018 Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 10 30

37 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Debt Management including Bailiffs and Write-Offs 2.5 Debt Cancellation Policy Priority 2 Recommendation Rationale Responsibility The Debt Cancellation Policy should be reviewed and updated where appropriate, so they are in line with working practices. In addition, the NEPP should ensure that Marston (a sister company of Rossendales; one of the three bailiffs used,) resolve the issue around inactivation of accounts that cannot be recovered. Management Response Having up to date Debt Cancellation procedures, which reflect working practices will help ensure that officers are acting in accordance with management requirements. The NEPP has a Debt Cancellation Policy, which outlines the appropriate stages to be followed prior to a write-off and the authorisation that must be sought. However, the final step of authorisation outlined (sign-off by the Section 151 Officer) is not followed, as a PCN is treated as a Civil Penalty rather than a debt, so there is no outstanding debt recorded within the Council s system. Once a PCN has been written-off, it is inactivated on the Chipside system. However, it was found that no PCNs have been inactivated this year due to a fault in the system between Marston and Chipside. The Council are chasing the appropriate bailiff to fix this and will inactivate the relevant cases once they have done so. Unless the Debt Cancellation Policy conforms with working practices, there is an increased risk that officers fail to act appropriately, resulting in challenge from members of the public that have been issued a PCN. Business Manager Deadline More robust system interface to be required by new debt contract SLA on re-tendering this year. Internally policies will be updated accordingly. 30 September 2018 Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 11 31

38 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Direction of Travel Improved since the last audit visit. Position of the arrow indicates previous status. Deteriorated since the last audit visit. Position of the arrow indicates previous status. Unchanged since the last audit report. No arrow Not previously visited by Internal Audit. Adequacy and Effectiveness Assessments Please note that adequacy and effectiveness are not connected. The adequacy assessment is made prior to the control effectiveness being tested. The controls may be adequate but not operating effectively, or they may be partly adequate / inadequate and yet those that are in place may be operating effectively. In general, partly adequate / inadequate controls can be considered to be of greater significance than when adequate controls are in place but not operating fully effectively i.e. control gaps are a bigger issue than controls not being fully complied with. Adequacy Existing controls are adequate to manage the risks in this area Existing controls are partly adequate to manage the risks in this area Existing controls are inadequate to manage the risks in this area Effectiveness Operation of existing controls is effective Operation of existing controls is partly effective Operation of existing controls is ineffective Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 12 32

39 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 1 Audit Framework Audit Objectives The audit was designed to assess whether management have implemented adequate and effective controls over Parking Partnership including Income. Audit Approach and Methodology The audit approach was developed with reference to the Internal Audit Manual and by an assessment of risks and management controls operating within each area of the scope. The following procedures were adopted: identification of the role and objectives of each area; identification of risks within the systems, and controls in existence to allow the control objectives to be achieved; and Evaluation and testing of controls within the systems. From these procedures we have identified weaknesses in the systems of control, produced specific proposals to improve the control environment and have drawn an overall conclusion on the design and operation of the system. Areas Covered Audit work was undertaken to cover the following areas: Parking Partnership; Policies and Procedures; Accounting for Income; Season Tickets; Partnership Costs; Joint Committee; Management Information; Procedures for the Collection of Car Park Fees; Security and Accuracy of Car Park Income Collection; Production and Review of Management Information including Variance Reporting; Access to Car Park Pay Point Keys; and Debt Management including Bailiffs and Write Offs. Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 13 33

40 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 2 Definition of Audit Assurance Assurance Gradings For each audit, we arrive at a conclusion that assesses the audit assurance in one of four categories. These arise from: Our evaluation opinion: we assess the system of controls, which are in place to achieve the system objectives. Our testing opinion: we check whether the controls said to be in place are being consistently applied. Full Assurance Substantial Assurance Limited Assurance No Assurance There is a sound system of internal control designed to achieve the Council s objectives. The control processes tested are being consistently applied. While there is a basically sound system of internal control, there are weaknesses, which put some of the Council s objectives at risk. There is evidence that the level of non-compliance with some of the control processes may put some of the Council s objectives at risk. Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the Council s objectives at risk. The level of non-compliance puts the Council s objectives at risk. Control processes are generally weak leaving the processes/systems open to significant error or abuse. Significant non-compliance with basic control processes leaves the processes/systems open to error or abuse. The assurance gradings provided above are not comparable with the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE 3000) issued by the International Audit and Assurance Standards Board and as such the grading of Full Assurance does not imply that there are no risks to the stated objectives. Recommendation Gradings In order to assist management in using our internal audit reports, we categorise our recommendations according to their level of priority as follows: Priority Level Definition 1 Major issues for the attention of senior management and the Governance and Audit Committee. 2 Important issues to be addressed by management in their areas of responsibility. 3 Minor issues resolved on site with local management. Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 14 34

41 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 3 Previous Assurance Opinions The table below includes details of the previous five Audit Assurance opinions provided /17 Substantial Assurance 2015/16 Limited Assurance 2014/15 Substantial Assurance 2013/14 Substantial Assurance 2012/13 Substantial Assurance Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 15 35

42 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 4 Staff Consulted Staff Consulted Audit Team Christine Belgrove Richard Walker Emma Day Jake England Business Manager Parking Partnership Group Manager Parking Systems Team Leader Parking Business Specialist Alan Woodhead Sarah Watkins Emily Williams Audit Manager Audit Lead Auditor Jonathan Baker Democratic Services Officer Trevor Degville Technical Manager Aimee Marshall Income Officer Chris Berwick Parking Services Officer Louise Richards Finance Business Partner Hayley McGrath Corporate Governance Manager Draft Report Distribution Richard Block Richard Walker Hayley McGrath Assistant Director Environment Parking Partnership Group Manager Corporate Governance Manager Final Report Distribution All of the above Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 16 36

43 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 5 Audit Timetable and KPIs Dates Target KPI Days Taken Planning meeting 22 November 2017 Fieldwork start 4 December 2017 Fieldwork completion 24 April 2018 Exit meeting 11 May 2018 Draft report issued to Council 24 April days 1 day Management response received 11 May days 1 day Updated report issued to Council 25 May 2018 Management response received 5 June 2018 Final report issued 6 June days 1 day KPI for Annual Plan Percentage for Audit Percentage of FTE fully or partly CCAB/IIA qualified input 65% 80% Percentage of recommendations accepted 95% 100% Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 17 37

44 Appendix 2 Colchester Borough Council Final Report Appendix 6 Statement of Responsibility We take responsibility for this report which is prepared on the basis of the limitations set out below. The responsibility for designing and maintaining a sound system of internal control and the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities rests with management, with internal audit providing a service to management to enable them to achieve this objective. Specifically, we assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the system of internal control arrangements implemented by management and perform sample testing on those controls in the period under review with a view to providing an opinion on the extent to which risks in this area are managed. We plan our work in order to ensure that we have a reasonable expectation of detecting significant control weaknesses. However, our procedures alone should not be relied upon to identify all strengths and weaknesses in internal controls, nor relied upon to identify any circumstances of fraud or irregularity. Even sound systems of internal control can only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance and may not be proof against collusive fraud. The matters raised in this report are only those which came to our attention during the course of our work and are not necessarily a comprehensive statement of all the weaknesses that exist or all improvements that might be made. Recommendations for improvements should be assessed by you for their full impact before they are implemented. The performance of our work is not and should not be taken as a substitute for management s responsibilities for the application of sound management practices. Parking Partnership Including Income /18 (Ref: 331) 18 38

45 Meeting Date: June 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: Annual Review of Risk Management Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, Colchester BC Hayley McGrath This report concerns the 2018/19 Risk Management Strategy and current strategic risk register for the partnership 1. Recommended Decision(s) 1.1. The Joint Committee is requested to endorse the Risk Management Strategy for 2018/ Review and comment on the risk register for the North Essex Parking Partnership (NEPP). 2. Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1. Risk Management is the control of business risks in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is an essential corporate governance process that ensures that both the long and short term objectives of the organisation are achieved and that opportunities are fully maximised It is essential that the service operates an effective risk management process which provides an assurance to all partners that it is being properly managed. As required by each partners own code of corporate governance. 3. Supporting Information 3.1. Risk Management is not about eliminating risk, as this would limit the ability of the service to develop and deliver its ambitions. Its purpose is to recognise the issues that could affect the achievement of objectives and develop actions to control or reduce those risks An effective risk management process is a continuous cycle of identification, controlling, monitoring and reviewing of potential risk issues For the NEPP this is governed by a strategy for managing risk that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the joint committee and officers. It also defines the types of risk, the processes to be followed and the review arrangements The main document is the risk register which captures details relating to both strategic and operational risks and the actions to be undertaken to control those risks. The strategic risks are reported to the joint committee and the operational risks are managed by the service. 4. Review of the Risk Management Strategy 4.1. The strategy should be reviewed annually to ensure that it is still relevant to the service and that it meets the governance objectives. Therefore a review has been carried out and the draft strategy for 2018/19 has been attached at appendix 1 for approval. The only change has been to the reporting process, reducing the number of committee reports to one a year with an interim review by the Parking Services Manager. 39

46 5. Review of the Risk Register 5.1. The register is attached at appendix 2, this sets out the strategic risks, which are scored for impact and probability, enabling the risks to be ranked, so that resources can be directed to the key areas The register was last reported to this committee in June The register has since been reviewed with the Parking Services Manager and then by the partnership client officers to ensure that it continued to reflect the issues faced by the service The review has not added any items, but there are recommendations for amendment: a) Three risks are recommended for amendment: 1.1 (reference to Off Street to be removed) 1.2 (no financial contribution foreseeable this referenced Off Street) 1.3 (references to the ECC review removed) 5.4. Risks recommended for removal: a) Two risks are recommended for removal: 1.18 (review of Off Street Agreements now completed); and 1.19 (Senior Management restructure at CBC now completed) 5.5. Currently the highest ranking strategic risk is: a) 1.9 referencing financial performance in future 5.6. The risk matrix is set out at appendix The operational risks are managed by the service and currently the highest operational risks relate to the possibility of an officer or member of the public incurring a serious injury and an interruption to the IT that is required to deliver the service It is requested that this committee reviews the strategic risks to ensure that they still reflect the issues faced by the service and that they are appropriately scored. 6. Conclusion and Recommendations 6.1. Members are asked to: Consider and endorse the Risk Management Strategy for the North Essex Parking Partnership, and Agree the strategic risk register, subject to any requested amendments. 7. Standard References 7.1. Having considered consultation, equality, diversity and human rights, community safety, health and safety and risk management implications, there are none that are significant to the matters in this report. 40

47 Appendix 1 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 Draft for Cttee 21 June 2018 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This document outlines the Service s commitment to managing risk in an effective and appropriate manner. It is intended to be used as the framework for delivery of the Risk Management function and provides guidance for officers to ensure that managing risk is embedded in all processes. INTRODUCTION The Service undertakes that this strategy will promote and ensure that: 1. The management of risk is linked to performance improvement and the achievement of the Service s strategic objectives. 2. Members of the committee and Senior Management of the Service own, lead and support on risk management. 3. Ownership and accountability are clearly assigned for the management of risks throughout the Service. 4. There is a commitment to embedding risk management into the Service s culture and organisational processes at all levels including strategic, project and operational 5. All members and officers acknowledge the importance of risk management as a process, by which key risks and opportunities are identified, evaluated, managed and contribute towards good corporate governance. 6. Effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms are in place to continuously review the Service s exposure to, and management of, risks and opportunities. 7. Best practice systems for managing risk are used throughout the Service, including mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing effectiveness against agreed standards and targets. 8. Accountability to stakeholders is fully demonstrated through periodic reviews of the Service s risks, which are reported to the committee. 9. The Risk Management Strategy is reviewed and updated annually in line with the Service s developing needs and requirements. June 2018 Page 1 41

48 Appendix 1 Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 Endorsement by Chairperson of the Committee The North Essex Parking Partnership is committed to ensuring that risks to the effective delivery of its services and achievement of its overall objectives are properly and adequately controlled. It is recognised that effective management of risk will enable the Service to maximise its opportunities and enhance the value of services it provides to the community. The North Essex Parking Partnership expects all officers and members to have due regard for risk when carrying out their duties. signature required WHAT IS RISK MANAGEMENT Risk Management is the control of business risks in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is an essential performance management process to ensure that both the long and short term objectives of the Service are achieved and that opportunities are fully maximised. Risk Management is not about eliminating risk, as this would limit the ability of the service to develop and deliver its ambitions. Its purpose is to recognise the issues that could effect the achievement of the objectives and develop actions to control or reduce those risks. Acknowledgement of potential problems and preparing for them is an essential element to successfully delivering any service or project. Good management of risk will enable the Service to rapidly respond to change and develop innovative responses to challenges and opportunities. The Good Governance Standard for Public Services issued by The Independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services states that there are six core principles of good governance including Taking informed, transparent decisions and managing risk. The document goes on to state Risk management is important to the successful delivery of public services. An effective risk management system identifies and assesses risks, decides on appropriate responses and then provides assurance that the chosen responses are effective. Appendix A outlines the risk management process. June 2018 Page 2 42

49 Appendix 1 Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 OWNERSHIP The responsibility to manage risk rests with every member and officer of the service however it is essential that there is a clearly defined structure for the co-ordination and review of risk information and ownership of the process. The following defines the responsibility for the risk management process within the joint parking service: Joint Committee Overall ownership of the risk management process and endorsement of the strategic direction of risk management. Responsible for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the risk management process. Assistant Director Regulatory, Colchester Borough Council Advising the Joint Committee on strategic risks and ownership of the service s operational risks. North Essex Parking Partnership Manager Control and reporting of the service s operational risks. Embedding a risk management culture in the service. Assistant Director Policy and Corporate, Colchester Borough Council Responsible for co-ordination of the risk management process, co-ordinating and preparing reports and providing advice and support. All Employees To understand and to take ownership of the need to identify, assess, and help manage risk in their individual areas of responsibility. Bringing to the management s attention at the earliest opportunity details of any emerging risks that may adversely impact on service delivery. Internal Audit, External Audit and other Review Bodies Annual review and report on the Service s arrangements for managing risk, having regard to statutory requirements and best practice. Assurance on the effectiveness of risk management and the controls environment. June 2018 Page 3 43

50 Appendix 1 Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 THE WAY FORWARD Aims & Objectives The aim of the service is to adopt best practices in the identification, evaluation, costeffective control and monitoring of risks across all processes to ensure that risks are properly considered and reduced as far as practicable. The risk management objectives of the North Essex Parking Partnership are to: Integrate risk management into the culture of the service Ensure that there are strong and identifiable links between managing risk and all other management and performance processes. Manage risk in accordance with best practice Anticipate and respond to changing social, environmental and legislative requirements Prevent injury, damage and losses and reduce the cost of risk Raise awareness of the need for risk management by all those connected with the delivery of services. Ensure that opportunities are properly maximised through the control of risk. Reduce duplication between services in managing overlapping risks and promote best practise. Strategic Risk Management Strategic risks are essentially those that threaten the long term goals of the service and therefore are mainly based around meeting the objectives of the Service Agreement. They may also represent developing issues that have the potential to fundamentally effect service provision, such as proposals to dramatically change County Council arrangements. Operational Risk Management Operational risks are those that threaten the routine service delivery and those that are associated with providing the service. These could include damage to equipment and Health and Safety issues. Links It is essential that risk management does not operate in isolation to other management processes. To fully embed a risk management culture it has to be demonstrated that risk is considered and influences all decisions that the service makes. It is essential that there is a defined link between the results of managing risk and the following: Service Delivery Plan Revenue and Capital Budgets Annual Internal Audit Plan June 2018 Page 4 44

51 Appendix 1 Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 Action Required The following actions will be implemented to achieve the objectives set out above: Embedding a risk register that identifies the strategic and operational risks and outline the actions to be taken in respect of those risks. Considering risk management as part of the service s strategic planning and corporate governance arrangements Ensuring that the responsibility for risk management is clearly and appropriately allocated Maintaining documented procedures for managing risk Maintaining a corporate approach to identify and prioritise key services and key risks across the service and assess risks on key projects. Maintain a corporate mechanism to evaluate these key risks and determine if they are being adequately managed and financed. Establish a procedure for ensuring that there is a cohesive approach to linking the risks to other management processes Including risk management considerations in all committee reports Ensure appropriate risk management awareness training for both members and officers. Establishing a reporting system which will provide assurance on how well the service is managing its key risks and ensures that the appropriate Members and officers are fully briefed on risk issues. Preparing contingency plans in areas where there is a potential for an occurrence to have a significant effect on the service and its business capability. Regularly reviewing the risk process to ensure that it complies with current national Governance Standards and Best Practice. REPORTING & REVIEW To ensure that the risk management process is effective it will need to be measured and reported to the Joint Committee at least annually, with a six monthly interim review by the Parking Partnership Manager. The results of the Joint Committee reviews should be fed into the risk reporting process for each partner to ensure that each Authority has the necessary evidence to provide assurance for their own governance requirements. June 2018 Page 5 45

52 Appendix 1 Risk Management Strategy 2018/19 Appendix A The Risk Management Process Risk Management is a continual process of identifying risks, evaluating their potential consequences and determining the most effective methods of controlling them and / or responding to them. The risks faced by the Service are constantly changing and the continual process of monitoring risks should ensure that we can respond to the new challenges. This process is referred to as the risk management cycle. Stage 1 Risk Identification Identifying and understanding the hazards and risks facing the service is crucial if informed decisions are to be made about policies or service delivery methods. There is detailed guidance available on how to identify risks which includes team sessions and individual knowledge. Once identified a risk should be reported to the Parking Partnership Manager who will consider its inclusion on the relevant risk register. If the risk is identified in between register reviews then it is reported to the Risk & Resilience Manager for information and the Parking Partnership Manager is responsible for managing the risk. Stage 2 Risk Analysis Once risks have been identified they need to be systematically and accurately assessed. If a risk is seen to be unacceptable, then steps need to be taken to control or respond to it. Stage 3 Risk Control Risk control is the process of taking action to minimise the likelihood of the risk event occurring and / or reducing the severity of the consequences should it occur. Stage 4 Risk Monitoring The risk management process does not finish with the risk control procedures in place. Their effectiveness in controlling risk must be monitored and reviewed. It is also important to assess whether the nature of the risk has changed over time. June 2018 Page 6 46

53 Appendix 2 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 STRATEGIC RISKS RISK No. RISK CONSEQUENCE CONTROLS BY WHOM A partner is not represented at a meeting as a suitable member from that authority has not attended, or the meeting is not quorate. Higher risk for Off-Street Cttee, which has four members, than On- Street. Due to financial constraints, one of the partners challenges the funding arrangements for the partnership There s a change in political will of a partner that leads to the partner withdrawing from the arrangement There is an imbalance in the decision-making power of the committee. A decision is taken on a local matter without local representation. Meeting has to be postponed Decision making delayed. Decrease in service provision / failure of the partnership. Stranded costs to be covered by the remainder of the partners. Decrease in service provision. The partnership fails and external funding is lost or needs to be repaid. Each authority will consider their arrangements to ensure that they are appropriately represented. Publish dates in good time combine meetings with other commitments where possible. Committee agendas to be printed a minimum of a week in advance of the meeting. Ensure that member authority representatives fully understand the partnership agreement and are involved in the budget setting of each authority Note: Reduced down given the current financial position and no anticipated increases in contribution in the near future. Ensure that performance of the partnership is appropriately reported back to each authority and the effects of withdrawing are understood. Note was increased to reflect ECC review Each member authority/ Cttee Officer Chief Finance Officer Parking Partnership Manager REVIEW SCORE Workings Previous Workings P I P I January 2018 January 2018 January RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 1 of 6 47

54 Appendix 2 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 RISK No. RISK CONSEQUENCE CONTROLS BY WHOM 1.4 Removed 1.5 Removed Lack of partnership support for shared 1.6 targets. 1.7 Removed 1.8 Removed Potential future financial challenges, of 1.9 reduced income and increased costs, are greater than expected. The partnership is subject to a major legal challenge 1.10 relating to policy decision Removed Failure to deliver key targets, missed opportunities, Tarnished reputation. Inability to invest in the future of the service. Missed opportunities Failure of the service. High financial impact of defending action. Reputation loss Reduction or withdrawal of services Ensure that partners are fully briefed on and committed to shared targets. Financial performance is stringently monitored and deviancies reported to the partnership for action. All policy decisions are made in line with legal powers. Parking Partnership Manager Parking Partnership Manager Chair of the joint committee REVIEW SCORE Workings Previous Workings P I P I January 2018 January 2018 January RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 2 of 6 48

55 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 RISK No. RISK CONSEQUENCE CONTROLS BY WHOM Appendix 2 Lack of agility responding to business need and demand, based on historical data in cttee reports. Central Government changes, from minor operational adjustments through to fundamental policy decisions, affect the ability of the partnership to deliver programmed services and meet its published financial and operational targets. Headline figures sway discussion, masking debate around project and solutions based improvements. Increased challenge from the public - whose expectations are raised, increased costs of additional working, reduction in performance whilst changes bed in. With impacts as highlighted in 1.10 above. Ensure that committee reports contain relevant and timely data that is balanced with future solutions, which identify critical issues and root cause analysis not just headline performance. Ensure that the development plan (and cttee) keeps a commercial and strategic focus rather than concentrating on operational details. Ensure all consultation is considered and responded to, ensure policies and procedures are aligned with any changes and future direction Note: The risk is not considered to have materialised as anticipated however there is still potential footway parking legislation. Parking Partnership Manager Chair of the Joint Committee REVIEW SCORE Workings Previous Working s P I P I January 2018 January RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 3 of 6 49

56 Appendix 2 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 RISK No. RISK CONSEQUENCE CONTROLS BY WHOM Selective media reporting of policy changes affects the ability of the partnership to deliver services. Investment in innovation does not provide a return that matches or exceeds investment Removed 1.17 Removed Increased challenge from the public - expectations raised, costs of additional working, reduction in performance whilst changes bed in. Potential financial impact of having to refund PCN s issued in error. Loss of financial stability and partners lose confidence in the arrangements. The Service is not able to keep pace with competitors in off street parking and cannot meet customer expectations. Ensure a consistent understandable response is given and a co-ordinated approach is undertaken to make clear statements about the effect that the changes will (or won t) have on services. Note: the risk has not materialised as anticipated therefore recommended to reduce. Ensure that there is a robust business case for all new investment, that considers all of the options and potential failures, with financial modelling of all scenarios. Development of formal monitoring processes for all investment - that identifies deviancies to the business plan at an early stage. Parking Partnership Manager Chair of the Joint Committee REVIEW SCORE Workings Previous Workings P I P I January 2018 January RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 4 of 6 50

57 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 RISK No. RISK CONSEQUENCE CONTROLS BY WHOM Appendix 2 The partner review of off-street parking arrangements could result in major changes to the arrangement. The Senior Management review at Colchester Borough Council will result in a new lead officer (& client officer) for the service. Could undermine confidence and alter the services that the partnership is required to deliver, possibly resulting in resourcing and delivery issues. If Colchester withdraws from the arrangement it would result in the cttee failing. Whilst the new structure embeds at Colchester there could be an impact on the support for the service or a change of direction. Clear objectives for the review should be set at the start of the process and regular reporting of progress and issues should be made, to ensure that there is transparent process. The Chair should ensure that the new Assistant Director is fully briefed on the aim of the joint committee. Chair of the Joint Committee Chair of the Joint Committee REVIEW SCORE Workings Previous Workings P I P I January 2018 January RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 5 of 6 51

58 Appendix 2 North Essex Parking Partnership Risk Register Version 10 June 2018 IMPACT TABLE PROBABILITY Impact Very Low 1 Low 2 Medium 3 High 4 Very High <10% 10 25% 25 50% 50 75% <75% Minimal - no interruption to service delivery < 10k Minor - temporary disruption to service delivery 11k - 25k Significant - interruption to part of the service 26k - 75k Severe full interruption to service delivery 76k - 100k 5 Catastrophic complete service failure 100k< Minimum Score = 1 Maximum Score = 25 Low risk = 1 4 Medium Risk = 5 12 High Risk = Removed Items No Risk 1.4 Preferences of members dictates the direction of the meeting. 1.5 Relationship between senior management and the committee deteriorates 1.7 ECC review results in fundamental changes to the service 1.8 Decisions are taken on a political basis as opposed to being considered on their own merits Introduction of new 1 coin 1.17 Withdrawal of ECC funding (prior to review) RW/HJM DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE: 21/05/18 NEXT REVIEW: January 2019 Page 6 of 6 52

59 Appendix 3 NORTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP RISK MATRIX JUNE 2018 Draft for Cttee 21 June 2018 Low Risks Medium Risks High Risks Scoring 1-5 Risk Tolerance Line 4 High Probability of Occurance 3 Medium 5 Very High Low Very Low 6 1 Very Low 2 Low 3 Medium 4 High 5 Very high Severity of Impact Risks Removed 1.4 Preferences of members dictate the direction of the meeting - June Relationship between management and committee deteriorates - June Essex County Council review of service - June Decisions are taken on a political basis as oppossed to being considered on their own merits. 53

60 Meeting Date: June 21 st 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: Financial Report (On and Off Street) Lou Belgrove, NEPP Business Manager Lou Belgrove, Richard Walker The report sets out the financial position of the Parking Partnership at the end of 2017/ Decision(s) Required 1.1. To approve the financial positions at the end of 2017/ To note the distribution of the Off-Street Parking Reserve (decided in December 2017). 2. Reasons for Decision(s) 2.1. For good governance, to ensure the future running of the service, and that NEPP on-street funds are spent or retained in line with its priorities and goals set out in the Development Plan To complete the dissolution of the off-street agreement. 3. Alternative Options 3.1. Legislation dictates that on-street funds are ring-fenced in accordance with s.55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). 4. Supporting Information 4.1. The on-street operation returned a surplus of 222,000 in the financial year 2017/18 and this has been transferred to the Civil Parking Reserve. See Appendix A, table The off-street operation returned a surplus of 64,000 in the financial year 2017/18 and this has been added to the off-street parking reserve. See Appendix A, table Financial Implications 5.1. The off-street reserve will now be divided proportionally amongst the off-street partners following the conclusion of the old off-street agreement. Details of which can be seen in Appendix B. 6. Standard References 6.1. There are no particular publicity or consultation considerations; equality, diversity and human rights; community safety; health and safety or other risk management implications. 7. Risk Management Implications 7.1. The risk management matrix has been updated in light of the performance of NEPP. 54

61 Appendices Appendix A Table 1 Financial Year 2017/18 On-Street 2016/ / / /2018 Actual Actual to date Budget to date Variance to date On-street Account Direct costs Expenditure Employee costs: Management CEOs & Supervision 1,024 1,148 1,246 (98) Back Office (4) TRO's Premises / TRO Maintenance costs Transport costs (running costs) Supplies & Services Third Party Payments ,988 2,322 2,331 (11) Income Penalty Charges (PCNs) (1,867) (1,900) (1,724) (176) Parking Permits/Season Tickets (534) (660) (515) (145) Parking Charges (P&D etc) (249) (310) (213) (97) Other income (162) (97) (50) (47) (2,812) (2,967) (2,502) (465) Total Direct Costs (824) (645) (171) (476) Total Non-direct Costs (31) Sub total (429) (222) 283 (507) Contribution to Work Programme Deficit / (Surplus) (429) (222) 283 (507) 55

62 Table 2 Financial Year 2017/18 Off-Street 56

63 Appendix B Off-Street Parking Reserve at end of 2017/18 Table 3 Basis for Calculation Basis for Calculation Basis for Calculation Basis for Calculation Total Contribution Total Contribution Total Contribution Total Contribution Area 2015/16 Prop'n Area 2016/17 Prop'n Area 2017/18 Prop'n Area Reserve Prop'n Braintree % Braintree % Braintree % Braintree % Colchester % Colchester % Colchester % Colchester % Epping Forest % Epping Forest % Epping Forest 0 0% Epping Forest % Harlow % Harlow % Harlow % Harlow % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus 0 To Reserve To Reserve 0 To Reserve Rebate to share Rebate to share Rebate to share Reserve to Share Share of Surplus 2016/17 Share of Surplus 2016/17 Share of Surplus 2016/17 Share of Surplus 2016/17 Braintree % Braintree % Braintree % Braintree % Colchester % Colchester % Colchester % Colchester % Epping Forest % Epping Forest % Epping Forest 0 0% Epping Forest % Harlow % Harlow % Harlow % Harlow % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Uttlesford % Total Total Total Total

64 Table 4 Share of Surplus 2015/16 Share Expend Sub Total Notes Braintree reserve % Braintree, Colchester, Epping Forest and Colchester reserve % Uttlesford carried out works to include new 1 Epping Forest reserve % coin in the machines from the reserve funds held Harlow reserve % on behalf of individual authorities. Uttlesford reserve % Harlow has a separate contract and did not Individual reserves total undertake those works. NEPP Reserve total cf Total of 50k transferred to reserve Share of Surplus 2016/17 Share Expend Sub Total Notes Braintree reserve % Colchester reserve % Colchester received its rebate in year Epping Forest reserve % Harlow reserve % Uttlesford reserve % Individual reserves total NEPP Reserve total bf cf Share of Surplus 2017/18 Share Expend Sub Total Notes Braintree reserve % Colchester reserve % Epping Forest reserve 0 0% Epping Forest had left the Partnership by this time Harlow reserve % Uttlesford reserve % Individual reserves total NEPP Reserve total bf cf Share of Reserve 2017/18 Share Expend Sub Total Notes Braintree reserve % Colchester reserve % Epping Forest reserve % Harlow reserve % Uttlesford reserve % Individual reserves total NEPP Reserve total to above 0 close Outputs to be distributed Notes Braintree reserve Colchester reserve The comprises the inputs into reserves ( 84000, 98000, and 50000) Epping Forest reserve minus the amounts spent/returned ( 3036, 6204, and 85000). Harlow reserve Uttlesford reserve The EFDC rebate is based on the contribution percentage when the was Individual reserves total placed into reserve. 58

65 Meeting Date: 21 st June 2018 Title: NEPP Annual Report Data for 2017/18 Author: Presented by: Richard Walker, NEPP Group Manager Richard Walker This report sets out the data required to be published as part of transparency requirements. A full report will be made to the October meeting. 1. Recommended Decision(s) 1.1. To note the details set out in the appendix. 2. Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1. To comply with requirements regarding data publication. 3. Alternative Options 3.1 None 4. Supporting Information 4.1. The data for inclusion in the Annual Report (from the 2017/18 financial year) is set out in the appendix. 5. Background Information 5.1. Each year, parking enforcement authorities are required to publish data relating to the performance in the previous financial year We working nationally with other authorities to improve the presentation, style and content of these reports The data included in the appendix will be published on the DataShare service in connection with transparency requirements and a full Annual Report will be published on the website. 6. Standard References 6.1. There are no particular references to the Development Plan; publicity or consultation considerations; or financial; equality, diversity and human rights; community safety; health and safety or risk management implications. 59

66 Appendix: Table 1 ISSUED PCNs Description Total 2012/13 Total 2013/14 Total 2014/15 TOTAL 2015/16 TOTAL 2016/17 TOTAL 2017/ /17 figures 2017/18 figures On Street 2016/17 Off Street 2016/17 CCTV (included in columns to the left) On Street 2017/18 Off Street 2017/18 CCTV (included in columns to the left) Number of PCNs Issued 59,517 72,055 61,674 69,629 66,703 74, ,351 16, Number of higher level PCNs issued 38,056 43,060 37,789 45,095 47,208 51, , Number of lower level PCNs issued 21,351 28,995 23,885 24,534 19,161 22, ,160 14,431 0 Percentage of higher level PCNs issued 53% 60% 61% 65% 71% 70% 84% 13% 100% 86% 10% 100% Percentage of lower level PCNs issued 49% 40% 39% 35% 29% 30% 15% 87% 14% 90% Number of Reg 9 PCNs issued 58,172 70,161 61,348 68,396 65,181 73, ,214 15,980 0 Number of Reg 10 PCNs issued Table 2 PCNs PAID 2016/17 figures 2017/18 figures Description Total 2012/13 Total 2013/14 Total 2014/15 TOTAL 2015/16 TOTAL 2016/17 TOTAL 2017/18 On Street 2016/17 Off Street 2016/17 CCTV (included in columns to the left) On Street 2017/18 Off Street 2017/18 CCTV (included in columns to the left) Number of PCNs paid 34,064 54,996 46,561 52,824 55,495 56,158 41,731 13, ,287 11, Number of PCNs paid which were issued at the lower band Number of PCNs paid which were issued at the higher band Percentage of PCNs paid which were issued at the lower band Percentage of PCNs paid which were issued at the higher band Number of PCNs paid at discount rate (i.e. within 14 days) 7,138 22,852 18,549 18,847 19,404 17,505 6,836 12, ,655 10, ,926 32,144 28,012 33,977 36,091 38, , % 42% 40% 36% 35% 31% 16% 91% 0% 15% 91% 0% 71% 58% 60% 64% 65% 69% 84% 9% 100% 85% 9% 100% 29,725 48,319 40,627 45,006 47,799 48,480 35,974 11, ,267 10, Number of PCNs paid at full rate Number of PCNs paid after Charge Certificate served (i.e. at increased rate) Percentage of PCNs paid at Charge Certificate 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 10% 3% 3% 5% Number of PCNs paid at another rate (e.g. negotiated with bailiff, etc) Percentage of PCNs paid 57% 76% 75% 76% 83% 76% 77% 110% 66% 76% 74% 66% Percentage of PCNs paid at discount rate 50% 88% 87% 85% 86% 86% 86% 86% 90% 86% 86% 94% 60

67 Table 3 PCNs CHALLENGED Description Total 2012/13 Total 2013/14 Total 2014/15 TOTAL 2015/16 TOTAL 2016/17 TOTAL 2017/ /17 figures 2017/18 figures On Street 2016/17 Off Street 2016/17 CCTV (included in columns to the left) On Street 2017/18 Off Street 2017/18 CCTV (included in columns to the left) Number of PCNs cancelled as a result of an informal or a formal representation Number of PCNs against which an informal or formal representation was made Number of PCNs where informal representations are made #REF! 5,174 4,129 4,874 5, ,336 17,084 15,209 16,654 16, ,243 14,217 12,741 13,501 13, Number of formal representations received 2,532 2,468 3,153 3, No of NTOs issued 11,842 13,329 13,694 17,757 17, Percentage of PCNs cancelled at any stage. 12% 7% 7% 7% 8% 6% 5% 19% 2% 5% 13% 7% Number of PCNs written off for other reasons (e.g. CEO error or driver untraceable) 2,741 5,318 4,803 2,951 2, Number of vehicles immobilised Number of vehicles removed Percentage of PCNs written off for other reasons (e.g. CEO error or driver untraceable) 10% 7% 8% 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 6% 3% 42% Table 4 APPEALS TO THE TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL Description Total 2012/13 Total 2013/14 Total 2014/15 TOTAL 2015/16 TOTAL 2016/17 TOTAL 2017/ /17 figures 2017/18 figures On Street 2016/17 Off Street 2016/17 CCTV (included in columns to the left) On Street 2017/18 Off Street 2017/18 CCTV (included in columns to the left) Number of appeals to adjudicators Number of appeals refused Number of appeals non-contested (i.e. NEPP does not contest) Percentage of cases to appeal 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Percentage of formal representations that go to appeal Percentage of appeals allowed in favour of the appellant 2% 4% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 0% 4% 5% 3% 52% 31% 23% 23% 25% 38% 23% 36% 39% 32% Percentage of appeals dismissed 24% 28% 28% 30% 29% 39% 30% 29% 44% 21% Percentage of appeals to Traffic Penalty Tribunal that are not contested and reasons 48% 41% 49% 48% 46% 22% 48% 36% 17% 46% Table 5 OTHER 2016/17 figures 2017/18 figures Description Total 2012/13 Total 2013/14 Total 2014/15 TOTAL 2015/16 TOTAL 2016/17 TOTAL 2017/18 On Street 2016/17 Off Street 2016/17 CCTV (included in columns to the left) On Street 2017/18 Off Street 2017/18 CCTV (included in columns to the left) Percentage of PCNs taken to Court Order 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Number of CEOs employed Average number of appeals per officer

68 Meeting Date: June 21 st 2018 Title: Author: Presented by: NEPP Operational Report Lou Belgrove Business Manager Lou Belgrove Business Manager The report gives Members an overview of operational progress since December Decision(s) Required 1.1. To note the content of the report. 2. Performance measures 2.1. The following graphs and supporting data show the issue rate of all Penalty Charges for both the on-street and off-street functions, with a financial year comparison. 62

69 2.2. The number of PCNs issued is mostly dependent upon staff resources. Availability has increased recently and this is shown in the upturn in issue rates The lone-worker solution together with the body-worn video system have helped to increase the amount of patrols possible. 63

70 3. Recruitment 3.1. Recruitment continues with vacancies now only remaining in one of the areas after a couple of successful rounds of recruitment filling the majority of the openings Recently revisions to the organisational structure resulted in a more streamlined organisation. This has in turn help the management team focus on projects and more specific specialisms. 4. Park Safe Car 4.1. The Park Safe CCTV car continues to operate across all participating districts and is being used to effectively enforce restrictions outside schools and at bus-stops where Essex County Council (ECC) and bus operators have raised issues with difficulty in stopping at the kerbside Regular adjustments to the enforcement polygons within the system are made to ensure all contravening vehicles are captured by the vehicle and at the same time ensuring vehicles not in contravention are not picked up by the camera Deployment of the car is being investigated further to ensure it is reaching its maximum potential alongside a project to develop the vehicles capabilities including linking it to MiPermit allowing focused enforcement in resident zones and the collection of vehicle movement and survey data. 5. Projects 5.1. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect May 25 th 2018, and officers have been busy updating data and privacy policies accordingly. Letter templates, PCN wording, websites and car park signage have all been reviewed in light of the new regulations coming into force The project to introduce a new customer-facing self-serve system which has been reported on before is on-going. The new system will give motorists an indication of the likely outcome of their case prior to deciding whether to challenge the Penalty or not. Officers are working with our software supplier and a company who specialises in customer self-serve systems to develop a product that meets NEPPs expectations and supports our discretion policy The website continues to be reviewed with improvements and additions being added regularly. 6. Communications and Social Media 6.1. NEPP is now available via a number of social media outlets which are managed by CBC s Communications and Marketing team in conjunction with NEPP officers and Members. These outlets are used by NEPP to promote our service and to act as an educative tool to explain what we do and why we do it Twitter is the main social media platform used by NEPP. NEPP first joined Twitter in May 2016 on a trial and now has 173 followers. 64

71 6.3. NEPP Twitter page was shortlisted for the Best Use of Social Media for Business category at the Essex Digital Awards The awards ceremony was held on 3 rd May in Chelmsford. Unfortunately NEPP did not win but were pleased to have been shortlisted. The winner of the category was Wedding Day Angel, a directory and blog created to give wedding day tips NEPP were also finalists at the British Parking Awards 2018 in the Communication Award category. The ceremony took place at the Royal Lancaster 9 th March Again, NEPP were not successful with the winners being the British Parking Association for its Know Your Parking Rights campaign NEPP have started publishing a quarterly e-newsletter that aims to improve the public s understanding of parking management and encourage innovation in its delivery The first NEPP E-Brief looks at the enforcement of pavement parking, a schools parking project, changes to on-street parking charges and the nationwide Positive Parking Agenda. 7. Permits 7.1. Last financial year NEPP issued approximately, 7590 resident permits and over 15,000 books of visitor permits. The following graphs give an indication of the split of permits over each district and as a percentage of the whole number issued. 65

72 7.2. NEPP offer a number of other permit types to help enable manage kerbside parking Carer permits are available at a small cost payable annually to allow residents who have care needs to have regular visitors to accommodate those needs Trader permits are also available for an increased annual cost to allow certain trades to park in residential areas to support both their needs and their customers Dispensations are also available at a cost, to allow vehicles to park in contravention of the parking and waiting restrictions in certain circumstances. 8. Future work 8.1. Shared use bays help to ensure optimum use of kerbside parking and are a good way of providing on-street parking at times when other demand is minimal The Commuter Parking Project work has identified that there is potential to maximise the benefits of shared use bays for local needs and commuter parking in future schemes and managed it with MiPermit MiPermit has been successful in its implementation, with take-up shown below: Cash MiPermit Combined Cash MiPermit Combined Cash MiPermit Combined Uttlesford District Tendring District Epping Forest District Colchester Borough N/A N/A N/A NEPP already offers MiPermit as an option at its 13 on-street pay to park places, split between Uttlesford (5) shared use bays with resident permit holders at any time; Epping Forest (6) for pay and stay; Colchester (1) commuters for the rail station; and Tendring (1) for local amenity parking. NEPP has already decided to match local car park pricing The issues discussed with Client Officers and outlined at the last meeting, make up the future work of the NEPP The focus of our work will remain on generating further efficiency in office systems and patrol deployment through smarter enforcement in order to reduce costs, together with a significant number of projects already programmed as part of the service review. 66

73 Meeting Date: June 2018 Title: Forward Plan Author: Presented by: Jonathan Baker Democratic Services, Colchester Borough Council Jonathan Baker Democratic Services, Colchester Borough Council This report concerns the Forward Plan of meetings for the North Essex Parking Partnership. 1. Recommended Decision(s) 1.1 To note the North Essex Parking Partnership Forward Plan for Reasons for Recommended Decision(s) 2.1 The forward plan for the North Essex Parking Partnership Joint Committee is submitted to each Joint Committee meeting to provide its members with an update of the items scheduled to be on the agenda at each meeting. 3. Supporting Information 3.1 The Forward Plan is reviewed regularly to provide an update on those items that need to be included on future agendas and incorporate requests from Joint Committee members on issues that they wish to be discussed. 67